Ninja-Proof Seats

Where you sit at work can impact your productivity.

I once worked in an office full of software engineers who were obsessed with what they called ninja-proof seats. A ninja-proof seat is one with its back to the wall so you can be sure no ninjas can sneak up from behind. Setting aside questions of whether ninjas can fly or climb walls, your computer screen can’t be seen without your knowledge.

Our original office was an industrial conversion in New York City’s West Village, although it wasn’t really converted for office use. It was a small sail-making factory that a flamboyant man named Franz had fitted out with Grecian columns and internal balconies, before running off to Berlin and subletting it to our organization. This meant there were many internal walls and small spaces. In the largest room, the software developers had arranged their desks in a large U so that everyone could have a ninja-proof seat.

As the organization grew, we needed to move to a larger, more professional office. The new space was lovely, with outstanding amenities like a living green wall, well-stocked kitchen, and expansive views. The company was vying to attract top engineering grads, wooing them with a workplace they would never want to leave.

But as you often find with these Google-esque offices, lots of energy had been put into these eye-catching extras, and much less into the workstations themselves. It was essentially a large, open-plan office with long rows of desks down the center.

Seats backing against the wall provide a sense of refuge, which can reduce stress and enhance concentration

Source: Lily Bernheimer

And this meant there were no ninja-proof seats! Not a single one. The developers’ complaints were dismissed as irrelevant—except for the most fearsome socks-under-Birkenstocks-wearing coder, who was mysteriously allowed to claim a broom closet for his sole use. (In hindsight, he may possibly have had a reputation for being more productive than all of the other developers combined.) The HR team was convinced that ninja-proof seats were mainly good for getting away with playing video games at work.

The term “ninja-proof seat” may be used primarily by those fluent in Python and JavaScript, but you will find people who are adamant about their need for one in any office you go to. This is because they provide what geographer Jay Appleton called refuge and prospect.

If you imagine a time when we were being chased by lions or men with swords, certain places would be much safer than others. Climbing up a hilltop would allow a good prospect of approaching threats. Building a fort against a mountain face would be even better, as it would provide refuge and limit the directions from which these lions or pirates might attack you.

We tend to prefer landscapes offering a combination of refuge (e.g. trees we could hide in) and prospect (expansive views)

Source: "Adventure-Calm-Clouds-414171" by Pixabay via Pexels (CC0)

Ideally, we desire environments that offer us the ability to observe potential threats and opportunities (prospect) without being seen by said threats and opportunities (refuge). Appleton argues that these evolutionary preferences were major factors in determining the environments humans have historically selected for settlement, the ways we modify geography and lay out parks, and artistic representations of idealized natural landscapes.

Our preference for ninja-proof seats works on the same principle. Many people feel most comfortable and at ease when they have their back to the wall rather than an open room or door. Next time you walk into a half-empty café, look around and see which seats are taken. Those backing against walls and facing windows or doors almost always fill up first.

More importantly, however, we can actually concentrate better on our work and demonstrate increased cognitive performance in ninja-proof seats.

Research from the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences has suggested that natural environments providing this coveted sense of refuge are the most restorative spaces for people suffering from stress (Grahn & Stigsdotter, 2010).

In the office environment, workers with a pleasant view or prospect outdoors have been found to be 6-12 percent more productive than workers without one. The same study found that office workers with a good view performed 10 percent to 25 percent better in terms of mental function and memory recall when compared to their unlucky counterparts working without window views (Heschong, 2003).

Window-facing seats like these offer prospect, but not refuge

Source: Lily Bernheimer

Of course, not every seat can optimize refuge and prospect at the same time—choosing a seat backing the wall may also mean facing away from a window.

As an environmental psychology consultant advising businesses on how to design their workspaces for greater well-being, I’ve noticed that many workers exhibit a higher preference for one or the other. Those seeking refuge, like the software engineers I worked with, tell you they simply can’t function with people walking up behind them. Prospectors will do anything to get a prime spot with a window view.

So what does this mean for enhancing your productivity—and protecting yourself from those pesky ninjas—at work?

Employees: Are you a refuger, or a prospector? Think about where you feel most productive and whether your current desk supports that.

Homeworkers: Position your desk in a place that gives you a nice view outside, but also a sense of enclosure.

Designers and office managers: Office layouts often don’t optimize refuge and prospect simply because no one has thought to do so! Take a look at how workstations are laid out in your office, and consider rearranging them to create some ninja-proof seats.

If a ninja targets you for elimination you will be eliminated (poisoned Starbucks, poison dart from panel ceiling, new "Security Guard" with hidden knives) but it's more likely a ninja's target will simply be spied on.

The best desk I ever had was in an open office environment. I had my back to a window. That way I could see most ninjas approaching (1 cabinet provided them some cover) and could look out the window and bird-watch when I needed a break. (The 2nd floor window overlooked the drainage pond and woods beyond that.)

I once quit a good job because my immediate boss insisted I sit with my back to the door and that I not close the door. Two days was all I could take--I felt like I was under attack. He said he wanted to be able to see and hear that I was working since the last person would close the door and not work.

My last office job moved everyone into an open office. I went from having a door, a view, and a refuge to sitting at the crossroads of one of the busiest areas in the building. My nerves were frayed by mid-afternoon every day--and I've lived through a civil war at my doorstep. 18 months after leaving there, the thought that someone understands what I faced because of where my desk was placed is validating. Thank you.

Not one of these wanna be social media influnelcers of corporate productivity consultants ever thinks about the adverse effects of their work. Perhaps they should go to a meat packing plant where employees are forced to walk around in guts and offal for their entire shift.

Most American employees have little control over their work environment, and changing the orientation of a desk could mean firing. It is even worse for employees with disabilities, even moving a screen, can bring the entire office down on the offender.

Articles like this refer to only a small segment of the population, and deliberately misreport employment and power dynamics, in order to normalize really bad working conditions. They also seek attention from big corporations hence the positive corporate references. There is no line anymore between deceptive marketing, and factual information. At a time when employees are striking due to human rights and Constitutional issues, these corporations will pay a lot for the positive alternative "news" mentions.

Perhaps ninja-proof seating is not an issue for some industries/professions, such as meat-packing plant production lines (I am certain they are not "office workers"). However, various organizations, professions, and industries compete for workers in the way that they believe is best for them. There are many organizations that try to recruit and retain experienced, intelligent, and productive professionals by offering an environment and culture that is attractive to that type of professional. Dismissing this article based on a narrow view stuck in a so-called traditionally established working environment or issues that are significant for one group seems hardly well-thought. The organizations that consulted this author compete for talent that probably have less problems with human or Constitutional rights. Those companies should be FREE to continue to compete in the marketplace and contribute to the GDP however they so choose (assuming it is legal and ethical. The people working on the meat-packing plant production line have other needs and desires in their work environment that are not going to fit the mold of example workers you dismissed. Feel free to continue to fight for those workers rights, but keep an open mind that there is plenty of room in the world for all kinds of efforts.

... and I can tell you that most people simply don't want people to know what they're doing because they want to surf the internet most of the day. And you know it too. Hell, in cubicles I've caught people literally sleeping at their desks.

If you think any of this is harsh or unfair, start your own company and let people shop and sleep half the day. Lemme know how that works out for you.

Okay, so you sound like you have a lot of experience with this. How many employees do you manage?

And how can I "not know enough about the job" when I'm the one who explained to the employee what the job is?

Just stop. People don't want other people knowing what they're doing half the day because they're goofing off and not working.

Listen, I'm not an ogre and I know people need downtime throughout the day -- I was an employee for 20 years myself. But you and I both know that this whole "I'm more productive when nobody knows what I'm doing" BS is just that for 99% of employees. If money is coming out of my pocket and into yours, I have a right to know what I'm getting.

20 years in the industry, for what it's worth. Right now I manage seven software engineers, and despite never once looking at their screens or tracking their comings and goings, I know what output to expect from each in a given week. I find Agile practices to be especially helpful in this regard; clear communication about exactly what is expected from everyone. I find this level of trust usually increases productivity over time. Micromanaging, in my experience, has the opposite affect.

What you are referencing applies only to those fields which work best with Theory X management as opposed to Theory Y management.

Theory X involves blind obedience to management dictates, in which employees are permitted no sense of ownership over their productivity and often have no real idea of how their activities fit into the overall activities and goals of the company. In such companies as yours, while management occasionally mouths words such as "creativity" and "incentive", what they really want from employees is unquestioning obedience. As these employees are treated as little more than human machinery who are given no opportunity to understand why they must do what they do, they are unable to improvise or compensate for sudden changes, and they have no reason to feel any connection with their activities. For this reason, an unusually high percentage of them will slack off in the fashion you mention -- and this tendency creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which you dehumanize them as a management strategy and they respond by behaving in accordance with your distrust and accusations.

In contrast, Theory Y involves creative cooperation and teamwork WITH management, in which employees are given a real sense of ownership over their productivity and often encouraged to know and to feel how their activities fit into the overall activities and goals of the company. In such companies, while management occasionally warns about adherence to policy and government regulations, what they really want from employees is creativity, innovation, and forward thinking. As these employees are treated as junior co-participants in the company with considerable opportunity to understand why they must do what they do, they are able to improvise or compensate for sudden changes, and they feel and behave with a strong commitment to the company and their specific duties. For this reason, an unusually high percentage of them will work well -- such as voluntary overtime and sometimes paying for needed materials out of their own pockets -- as described in the article, and this tendency creates a self-reinforcing cycle in which they are shown respect and trust by their managers and they respond by behaving in accordance with such respect and trust.

Examples of the classic Theory X include the lower ranks of the military and the lower ranks of the fast food service industries.

Examples of the classic Theory Y include innovative software engineering and design, university and college teaching, and the more successful advertising and promotional firms.

Programmers are a breed that are located on some spectrum or other between technician, detective, and artist. Productivity cannot be measured on a piecework basis. Think about our image of Sherlock Holmes, sitting in his big overstuffed chair, motionless while smoking his pipe and contemplating the case or sometimes a newspaper, and then jumping out of his seat to rush off to solve the case.

Yeah, he's fictional. Except for one thing — there are police people around the world and others who use similar techniques to his. I have multiple "crime walls" straight out of Sherlock Holmes that I contemplate for solving issues with most of my projects.

When artists are incubating a new idea, are they being unproductive? When I contemplate my crime wall, am I being unproductive? What about Google, where reportedly, employees are supposed to focus a significant portion of their time on their own projects? Is Google unproductive?

I'm retired. I'm also more productive than anyone else that I know in my life. I wake up in the morning, contemplate my crime wall, play with ideas, sometimes write my novel or a humorous blog, sometimes code (though right now, most of my coding time is spent studying courses for future coding projects), taking breaks to cook and eat and for a one hour walk before bed. Oh yes, and also taking breaks to be with my wife, occasionally.

I like the privacy of my current ninja seat. On my last job nine years ago, my employer did not like my creative approach to time management. Yet, that was the basis of my productivity then — as it is now. For the record, I only worked on my stuff when I was completely finished with his stuff, and unfortunately he did not recognize it that way.

John, in my opinion, you are probably not a good employer to work for — at least not for creative and highly productive people like myself.

Consider this: If Sherlock Holmes was working for you, you would fire the greatest mind that has ever been conceived of in fiction. You would also fire most of the people working at Google. I can only imagine that you're projecting your own lack of creativity, imagination, and productivity on people around you.

I have lead (as opposed to just 'managed') successful organizations of talented professionals and we culturally set expectations/policies and enforced them. Those who screwed off at work were properly documented, warned several times, and eventually terminated if they continued to exhibit the policy-violating BEHAVIOR. We retained talent that way because the motivated talent stay more motivated and productive when they see everyone is pulling their weight instead of creating more work for the productive people. The more you trust your contributors the more they contribute (trust is the basis of empowerment, and really, any positive human relationship). And if you effectively document measurable performance and review it (NOT the same as micro-managing if done properly), then you can steer the ship in the right direction and know people are not screwing off.

I think this comes back to giving employees their own office space to do their job and be as creative and productive as they can be. There are so many technological ways to check up on an employee to make sure they are doing their job and not surfing the net and/or shopping.

You got that right, macs are trash, I think peopel just use them to be percieved as cool. I tried using a mac for around 4 months and it was junk and annoying. I prefer Windows and so does everyone else who gets things done. I think macs are for people who like to tinker around and Windows are for people who actually get things done.

I am in upper managemen and I run a tight ship. I let people have office spaces where they are not having someone lookng over their shoulder. I was a grunt once and despised that feeling. These so -called ninja proof seats arent anything new, just insert a buzzword and it all of a sudden becomes trendy.

The issue is that people will try to get away with doing less work which ruins it for everyone else. So I make it clear from the start that anyone caught screwing off and taking advantage will cause everyone else to have to submit hourly work reports (which although cuts into productivity, is more of a lesson and also a way to be held accountable. Nothing cuts more into team productivity more than a sleeping worker or social media dummy on FB or instagram.) Plus there are software programs that you can monitor a team and make it into a collaborative effort where everyone can see others progress. I am not naming software because it will sound like I am plugging it. I dont really utilize that much anymore due to the percieved invasiveness and micro-management feel, but depending on your management style its an option.

Needless to say EVERY person who is actually working hates submitting hourly reports and will quickly put the slacker back in line with no help from me. If it happens more than twice then me firing them is an option at that point. No one will miss them.

There is literally one ninja left in the world, and he's pretty old now. His name is Kawakami, and he has decided to not pass down the traditions and teachings of the ninja to the next generation because he sees that it is no longer relevant to the world.

This is stupid chair is just as relevant as having a Renaissance jouster proof chair, a Spartan warrior proof chair, or a Viking proof chair. This chair is designed to keep one, old Japanese guy, who doesn't know or care who you are, away from you.

This piece reminded me of a New York Times' article by Matthew Desmond, titled: "In order to understand the brutality of American capitalism, you have to start on the plantation."

Quote: "Modern-day workers are subjected to a wide variety of surveillance strategies, from drug tests and closed-circuit video monitoring to tracking apps and even devices that sense heat and motion. A 2006 survey found that more than a third of companies with work forces of 1,000 or more had staff members who read through employees’ outbound emails. The technology that accompanies this workplace supervision can make it feel futuristic. But it’s only the technology that’s new. The core impulse behind that technology pervaded plantations, which sought innermost control over the bodies of their enslaved work force. The cotton plantation was America’s first big business, and the nation’s first corporate Big Brother was the overseer. And behind every cold calculation, every rational fine-tuning of the system, violence lurked."

... We never left the plantation, as a society, did we? Open-space workstations are yet one more device used by employers to spy and put pressure on workers, to control them — a lot like a panopticum (version 2.0).